Best years for a luthier?

[Timbofood]

T. D. Are you having us all on? Do you have some information about Mr. Loar which has eluded the rest of us? I have never heard it acknowledged that Lloyd Loar was ever known to have been anything other than an "acoustical engineer" in his tenure with Gibson.
Not throwing stones but, genuinely interested.

[JeffD]

If luthiers themselves acknowledge that their work improves as they learn their craft, why are we so hesitant to do so?

Was someone hesitant to do so?

[JeffD]

If you want to get a mandolin that is the best for you, you have to try a bunch out and see what works. Even an acknowledged great luthier during a peak year might not make a mandolin that is good for you.

If you find a mandolin that is the best for you, or even just works real well for you, then the whole world's opinion about that luthier or other luthiers or that mandolin's year or other years - it really all doesn't matter.

I think there is nothing better than trying a bunch and seeing what you like and getting the best you can afford and playing the potatoes out of it.

I really hate it when someone answers a question by saying its not the right question to ask, and yet here I find myself doing it. Grrrrr.

OTOH the amount of work required to get and collate the information, and the amount of equal but opposite expert opinion to sort through, well it just doesn't seem worth it, if all you want to do find a mandolin that can make you happy.

[CES]

I think the OP is a valid proposition, though perhaps a daunting task to compose an exhaustive list, especially given the subjective nature of "better." My personal experience is too limited to be of much use, other than to say that, in generall, Flatirons made prior to Gibson's acquisition are considered better instruments in that line. Of course, I kind of like my Gibson made 1N from 1994, so...

Also, I'll comment that, while no one wants to unfairly criticize someone's work (since I've never built an instrument, ALL luthiers are better than me at their craft), it should be OK to discuss variations in a luthier's work over the years. I'm going to stop short of my rant about our "every kid gets a trophy" attitude, and permutations therein...

[dcoventry]

By odd coincidence, my 2 mandos are both 2005 vintage.

In the case of the Rigel G5, the 2005 was a year before they had to close doors, but at the height of the boom. It is one of few, maybe 18 or so, so perhaps got some extra attention, but I prefer to think it is the culmination of learning.

My Phoenix is #400, FWIW, and is just a simply beautiful work of art. Was it because at 2005 Rolfe was at the height of his powers, special work on the round number of 400, or just a good day at the office? Dunno. But man oh man, it's a spicy meatball!

[Jess L.]

... When they are old enough to have learned from their past experiences, and young enough that their eyesight is still good, and back is still straight. ...

That's what I was thinking too, when I first saw this topic... I thought maybe someone was contemplating a career change and needed to know what age would be the best time to proceed...

[Charlieshafer]

I thought when I saw the thread that this was a strange question: everyone knows the best years are when the luthier has a little extra money in the bank.

[T.D.Nydn]

Timbo,,,what I did was just looked him up .the majority of descriptions say he was a master luthier.i will accept this because: acoustic engineering is a very diverse field.musical acoustic engineering is just a small part of the overall study.to specialize in musical engineering,I'm going to say the person has to have a direct interest in musical instruments and how they sound.to understand this fully you have to understand their construction also.i really doubt ,that,let's say mr. Loar studied how to keep city streets quiet,for example,and then Gibson hired him as head of their acoustic dept.he really knew instrument construction also.for all we know,he even had to show Gibson some of his work.i don't think,as acoustic engineer at Gibson,he spent five years sitting in an office staring at plans.he was an inventor and did many prototypes.im sure he personally had a hand in these as how does an employee or apprentice take over on prototypes.also he had to check on the other work,to make sure it's done right,if the workers are luthiers,it takes a master luthier to check them.for me to think that mr loar ,in five years at Gibson,"never even picked up a gouge " is absurd....

[JEStanek]

Hmmm. I won't contribute to this since I have no real data to offer. Anecdotes aren't really helpful for a thread that will be searchable forever. I think if you're interested in an builder, speak with him or her. If there is a specific one (even used) you can still contact the builder to ask what their records may show for it.

At the end of the day, don't invest a lot of money just in a name on the headstock. MAke sure that instrument feels and sounds right in your hands.

Jamie

[JeffD]

Timbo,,,what I did was just looked him up .the majority of descriptions say he was a master luthier....

Have you seen the bio on the Siminoff site?

Many believe that Lloyd Loar was a luthier who built instruments at Gibson and then signed them. While it is true that he signed the labels, Loar was not a luthier, and he did not work at Gibson as an instrument builder. He was a musician who had an intense interest in musical acoustics, and in his role at Gibson, he guided the design and development of several instruments and accessories. With the exception that Loar was employed by Gibson as a contractor, his contribution to Gibson’s instrument line was similar to that of Les Paul (1915-2009) whose ideas and input led to Gibson’s growth and expansion in solidbody electric guitars.

Like everything else, it seems its complicated.

[T.D.Nydn]

Well,I guess that settles that...

[JeffD]

Well,I guess that settles that...

Well... not really. He definitely did hands on work exploring his ideas. Just not as a luthier.

From what I have been able to gather, the relationship between Loar and Gibson is not easy to characterize. The analogy in the article to Les Paul seems accurate - as he similarly gigantically impacted the future direction of a Gibson product, but was more of a musician than a Gibsonner.

[allenhopkins]

...The analogy in the article to Les Paul seems accurate - as he similarly gigantically impacted the future direction of a Gibson product, but was more of a musician than a Gibsonner.

Well, I don't think Gibson ever actually employed Les Paul, though Lloyd Loar was definitely on their payroll. And Paul built his own solid-body guitar -- the famous "Log" -- to experiment with. Do we know whether Loar actually built experimental instruments, or just oversaw Gibson's luthiers, directing their efforts?

[FLATROCK HILL]

Well, I don't think Gibson ever actually employed Les Paul, though Lloyd Loar was definitely on their payroll.

On the surface, this may seem a minor detail. In historical retrospect, it may have been a monumental factor.
As a 'non-employee' Les Paul most likely would not have attended any of those wild company Christmas parties.

[Jeff Mando]

Maybe the implication is that we all want to play an instrument built by a master luthier built at the top of his game. I might add, and knowing that info somewhat ahead of the curve, so that we can get one at a good price.

[Timbofood]

Thank you Jeff, that was the information I had as well, and a tip of the hat to Mr. Siminoff for his efforts to share the story of a man so revered.
T.D., I have no reason to doubt your source but, where did you find the info? More information makes us all better educated.
To be honest, I really wish I had been around at any of the Christmas parties with either Mr. Loar, Les Paul, or any of the fascinating people who worked during the hey day of the company! That would be a fine evening indeed, talking with any of the guys from the shop, who actually had hands on so many instruments that we cherish to this day!

[mandroid]

before their hands give out from repetitive stress. and working is painful .

[allenhopkins]

...working is painful.

+1 to that -- which is why I don't do it any more. Not just handwork, any work...

Just sit at the keyboard annoying the rest of the Cafe´, 'til it's time to go out and annoy an audience somewhere.

[yankees1]

Like the Cubs----wait till next year !

[Tavy]

Well, I don't think Gibson ever actually employed Les Paul, though Lloyd Loar was definitely on their payroll. And Paul built his own solid-body guitar -- the famous "Log" -- to experiment with.

Digression.... according to Les Paul's book on the Larson Brother's he used them to build his first instruments (they weren't impressed with the idea apparently).

[Tavy]

I think the only rule is you don't want any instrument worked on after lunch on a Friday.

That's when I do all my best work

To answer the OP's question: ask a luthier about their best period and it's always "the next one". Always.

Generally that's true as well, possible exceptions include the issues we all get with hearing loss (how do you tell if it's any good?), sight problems (can't see the finish blemishes), and finger agility (can't do make small fiddly pieces any more) that we all get as we age.